Featured Cases

Court Case
Dec 02, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Police Practices and Police Misconduct|
  • +1 Issue

Escobar Molina v. Dep’t of Homeland Security – Challenging Warrantless Immigration Arrests Without Probable Cause in D.C.

On September 25, 2025, four Washington, D.C. community members and the national immigration organization CASA sued the Trump administration to end its policy and practice of making immigration arrests in D.C. without a warrant and without probable cause. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, American Civil Liberties Union, Amica Center for Immigrants’ Rights, CASA, National Immigration Project, the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and the law firm of Covington & Burling. Since August, federal officers from multiple agencies have made hundreds of immigration arrests in the District. The officers frequently patrol and set up checkpoints in neighborhoods where a large number of immigrants live and stop and arrest people as they go about their daily lives. The law typically requires an agent to have a warrant when arresting someone for an immigration violation. One exception to the warrant requirement is when the agent has probable cause both that a person is in the United States in violation of the law and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. According to the lawsuit, the Trump administration has a policy and practice of making immigration arrests without a warrant and without an individualized determination of probable cause that the person is in the country unlawfully and that the person is a flight risk. Each plaintiff in the case was arrested, detained, and released. The lawsuit was filed as a class action. The plaintiffs seek a court ruling to prevent the government from conducting such unlawful arrests against them and others in the future. On October 3, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and a motion for a preliminary injunction, to stay agency action, and for provisional class certification to ask the Court to order Defendants and their agents to stop making warrantless immigration arrests without probable cause for flight risk, as required by the Immigration and Nationality Act. On November 19, 2025, the district court heard oral argument on Plaintiffs’ motions. On December 2, 2025, the district court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, to stay agency action, and for provisional class certification. It issued an order preliminarily enjoining the government from enforcing its policy or practice of making warrantless civil immigration arrests in D.C. without a pre-arrest individualized determination by the arresting agent of probable cause that the person being arrested is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. It also provisionally certified a class consisting of “[a]ll persons who, since August 11, 2025, have been or will be arrested in this District for alleged immigration violations without a warrant and without a pre-arrest, individualized assessment of probable cause that the person poses an escape risk” for purposes of the preliminary injunction. The court further ordered the government to document the facts supporting an arresting agent’s probable cause to believe a person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained and to periodically provide such documentation to Plaintiffs’ counsel.
Court Case
Dec 03, 2025
Three women federal workers in power poses
  • Equal Protection and Discrimination|
  • +4 Issues

Fell v. Trump (formerly Stainnak v. Trump) - Challenging Purge of DEI-Associated Federal Workers As Discriminatory and Retaliatory for Perceived Political Beliefs

Federal employees filed a complaint against the Trump administration for targeting workers, especially people of color, women, and non-binary workers, for participating in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) activities, violating their First Amendment rights.
Court Case
Oct 23, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Freedom of Speech and Association|
  • +1 Issue

O’Hara v. Beck: Defending the Right To Protest the National Guard

In Star Wars, the Imperial March is the music that plays when Darth Vader and his storm troopers enter the scene. It’s also the soundtrack of Sam O’Hara’s protest against the National Guard’s presence in D.C. National Guard troops arrived in the District after President Donald Trump deployed them to support local police—an act that Mr. O’Hara views as a violation of centuries-old norms against militarizing domestic law enforcement and a threat to individual freedom. To highlight the surreal danger of the deployment, Mr. O’Hara began walking behind Guard members when he saw them in the community, playing The Imperial March on his phone, and recording. Most community members got the point of the protest, and so did several members of the Guard, who either smiled or laughed in response. Ohio National Guard Sgt. Devon Beck, however, was not amused by the satire. He threatened to call MPD if Mr. O’Hara didn’t stop his protest. When Mr. O’Hara persisted, Sgt. Beck recruited MPD officers to the scene, and the officers proceeded to detain and handcuff Mr. O’Hara, ending his demonstration. The First and Fourth Amendments (not to mention D.C. law) bar government officials from detaining people just because of their speech. Mr. O’Hara is suing to vindicate that principle. Press Release

All Cases

281 Court Cases
Court Case
Sep 07, 2023
Placeholder image
  • Freedom of Speech and Association|
  • +1 Issue

Molina v. Book – Advancing the right to observe police, and challenging qualified immunity doctrine, which shields officials from constitutional accountability

In 2015, police officers shot tear gas at two legal observers with bright green "Legal Observer" hats. The court ruled that words printed on clothing are not entitled to First Amendment protections. Together with the National ACLU and the ACLU of Missouri, we petitioned SCOTUS to review the case.
Court Case
Aug 10, 2023
Placeholder image
  • Criminal Justice Reform|
  • +1 Issue

Benjamin v. Colbert – Challenging D.C. Jail’s Failure to Provide Religious Dietary Accommodations

The lawsuit, filed as a class action, primarily seeks a court order to prohibit DOC officials from imposing requirements on Jewish people in their custody to provide external verification of their religion as a condition for approving their kosher meal requests.
Court Case
Aug 03, 2023
Michael Perloff speaking at the press conference for Crisis Response
  • Disability Rights|
  • +1 Issue

Bread for the City v. District of Columbia – Challenging Discrimination in Mental Health Emergency Response Services

When people in D.C. call 911 for a mental health emergency, it’s generally a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officer who responds. The District’s reliance on police as its default first responders for mental health emergencies is not only unfair and unsafe but also unlawful.
Court Case
Mar 22, 2023
Placeholder image
  • Equal Protection and Discrimination|
  • +1 Issue

SONMEZ V. WASHINGTON POST – IS AN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CLAIM AGAINST A NEWSPAPER A SLAPP?

Court Case
Feb 28, 2023
Placeholder image
  • Due Process/Procedural Rights

Ebosele Oboh v. D.C. Department of Buildings - Excessive Fine Violates the Eighth Amendment

Ebosele Oboh was renovating his house without having obtained the necessary permits. The Department of Buildings issued him a fine for the violation, then doubled the fine as a penalty for not responding to the first. This amicus brief argues that the excessive penalty violates the 8th Amendment.
Court Case
Feb 24, 2023
Placeholder image
  • Disability Rights|
  • +1 Issue

Taylor v. McDonough – The Government Should Take Care of Veterans it Harmed

In 1969, seventeen-year-old Bruce Taylor enlisted in the army and volunteered for a secret weapons testing program at the Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland, where he was used as a human guinea pig in experiments with chemical weapons. As a result, he has suffered from a lifelong health condition.
Court Case
Jan 10, 2023
Placeholder image
  • Equal Protection and Discrimination|
  • +1 Issue

Neloms v. District of Columbia – Challenging D.C. DMV’s Telework Discrimination Against Parents and Caregivers

In December 2022, we filed a complaint with the D.C. Office of Human Rights alleging discrimination based on family responsibilities and seeking compensation for our clients and changes to the DMV telework policy so it does not disadvantage parents and caregivers.
Court Case
Oct 12, 2022
Placeholder image
  • Immigrants' Rights|
  • +1 Issue

ACLU V. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND ICE

Court Case
Jun 21, 2022
Placeholder image
  • National Security/War on Terror

ACLU V. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT CASE REGARDING NEW PROGRAM TO COMBAT DOMESTIC VIOLENT EXTREMISM

The government has long infringed on Americans’ fundamental rights and liberties under the guise of national security. We want to know DHS’s plan to safeguard civil liberties, civil rights, and privacy, or whether it even has one.